without deliberate intent, it is known to be authentic. For example, someone recounts an event and gives details of what was said and done. Another person, known not to have colluded with the first, then recounts the same details. It is thereby known with certainty that the event truly occurred in its broad outlines. For if both had given a false account, whether deliberately or mistakenly, they would not ordinarily have supplied matching details of a kind that, in the normal course of events, two people cannot agree upon without colluding.

One person may happen to compose a verse and another compose an identical one, or one may tell a lie and another tell the same lie. But if someone composes a long poem covering various themes, with a fixed rhyme and rhyme consonant, ordinary experience does not admit that someone else would independently compose a poem identical in wording and meaning despite its considerable length. Rather, ordinary experience establishes that he took it from the first poet. Likewise, if someone relates a lengthy account covering various matters and another relates an identical account, either he colluded with the first narrator, took the account from him, or the account is true.

Through this method, the truth of most transmitted accounts reaching us through multiple distinct channels in this manner can be established, even if no individual channel is sufficient on its own, either because its chain is incomplete or because its transmitter is weak. However, this method does not establish precise wording or fine details that cannot be known in this way. Thus, there is no need for a transmission route that establishes such precise wording and fine details.

Accordingly, the Battle of Badr and the fact that it preceded Uhud are established by mass transmission. Indeed, it is known with certainty that Hamza, 'Alī, and 'Ubayda went out to confront 'Utba, Shayba, and al-Walīd